Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-8ctnn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T07:03:36.541Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Terminating the Provincial Career: Retirement and Electoral Defeat in Canadian Provincial Legislatures, 1960–1997*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 November 2009

Gary F. Moncrief
Gary F. Moncrief
Affiliation:
Boise State University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article analyzes data on incumbent turnover in 103 provincial elections in Canada from 1960 to 1997. The author examines total turnover and the proportions attributable to retirement and electoral defeat. He notes that the overall rate of turnover in the provincial legislative assemblies is similar to that of the Canadian House of Commons. Further, voluntary retirement and electoral defeat comprise equal proportions of the total turnover. There are, however, important differences in the turnover rate and in its makeup, both by province and by time period. The author tests several models in an attempt to determine the correlates of turnover in Canadian provincial legislatures.

Résumé

Cet article analyse les données concernant le remplacement des élus lors de 103 élections provinciates au Canada de 1960 à 1997. La totalité des remplacements est étudiée ainsi que la proportion causée par les retraites ainsi que les défaites électorates. Dans l'ensemble, cet article conclu que le taux de remplacement dans les assemblées législatives provinciales est similaire à celui de la Chambre des communes canadienne. Par ailleurs, il est montré que les retraites volontaires et les défaites électorales composent, dans des proportions similaires, au phénomène du remplacement des élus. Il existe cependant d'importantes différences dans le pourcentage total des remplaces selon les provinces et les périodes retenues. Différents modèles sont testés pour déterminer les raisons expliquant ces remplacements dans les provinces canadiennes.

Type
Research Article
Information
Canadian Journal of Political Science/Revue canadienne de science politique , Volume 31 , Issue 2 , June 1998 , pp. 359 - 372
Copyright
Copyright © Canadian Political Science Association (l'Association canadienne de science politique) and/et la Société québécoise de science politique 1998

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Richard E. Matland and Donley T. Studlar, “Turnover Patterns and Explanations of Variations in Turnover in Parliamentary Democracies,” paper presented at the European Consortium of Political Research, Bordeaux, France, April 1995.

2 See, for example, Benjamin, Gerald and Malbin, Michael, eds., Limiting Legislative Terms (Washington: CQ Press, 1992).Google Scholar

3 McCormick, Peter, “Provincial Political Party Systems, 1945–1986,” in Gagnon, Alain and Tanguay, A. Brian, eds., Canadian Parties in Transition (Scarborough: Nelson Canada, 1989), 169–170.Google Scholar

4 There are many such studies of the United States Congress, but for early examples see Polsby, Nelson, “The Institutionalization of the U.S. House of Representatives,” American Political Science Review (1968), 144–168CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Price, H. Douglas, “Congress and the Evolution of Professionalism,” and Fiorina, Morris, Rohde, David and Wissel, Peter, “Historical Change in House Turnover,” both in Ornstein, Norman, ed., Congress in Change (New York: Praeger, 1976), 2–23, 24–57Google Scholar. At the US state legislative level, see, for example, Hyneman, Charles S., “Tenure and Turnover of Legislative Personnel,” Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 195 (1938), 21–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Rosenthal, Alan, “Turnover in State Legislatures,” American Journal of Political Science 18 (1974), 606–616CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Shin, Kwang and Jackson, John, “Membership Turnover in US State Legislatures: 1931–1976,” Legislative Studies Quarterly 4 (1979), 95–114CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Niemi, Richard and Winsky, Laura, “Membership Turnover in US State Legislatures: Trends and Effects of Districting,” Legislative Studies Quarterly 12 (1987), 115–123CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Squire, Peverill, “Career Opportunities and Membership Stability in Legislatures,” Legislative Studies Quarterly 13 (1988), 65–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

5 See, for example, Thomas Casstevens and William Denham III, “Turnover and Tenure in the Canadian House of Commons, 1867–1968,” this Journal 3 (1970), 655–61.

6 Hayama, Akira, “Incumbency Advantage in Japanese Elections,” Electoral Studies 11 (1992), 46–57CrossRefGoogle Scholar; John Hickman, “Electoral Competition in the Japanese House of Representatives and the Taiwanese Legislative Yuan,” paper presented at the annual meeting of the Western Political Science Association, Albuquerque, New Mexico, 1994; Michael Atkinson and David Docherty, “Moving Right Along: The Roots of Amateurism in the Canadian House of Commons,” this Journal 25 (1992), 295–318; and Docherty, David, “Should I Stay or Should I Go?” in Mancusso, Maureen, Price, Richard and Wagenberg, Ronald, eds., Leaders and Leadership in Canada (Toronto: Oxford University Press, 1994), 245–265Google Scholar.

7 Richard Matland and Donley Studlar, “The Determinants of Legislative Turnover: A Cross-National Analysis,” paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, New York, 1995.

8 Somit, Albert, Wildenmann, R., Boll, B. and Roemmele, A., eds., The Victorious Incumbent: A Threat to Democracy? (Dartmouth: Aldershot, 1994)Google Scholar.

9 Franks, C. E. S., The Parliament of Canada (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1987), 73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

10 Blake, Donald, “Party Competition and Electoral Volatility: Canada in Comparative Perspective,” in Bakvis, Herman, ed., Representation, Integration and Political Parties in Canada, Research Study for the Royal Commission on Electoral Reform and Party Financing (Toronto: Dundurn Press, 1991).Google Scholar

11 Docherty, “Should I Stay or Should I Go?”; and Atkinson and Docherty, “Moving Right Along.”

12 Franks, The Parliament of Canada.

13 Atkinson and Docherty, “Moving Right Along,” 305.

14 Moncrief, Gary, “Professionalization and Careerism in Canadian Provincial Assemblies: Comparison to US State Legislatures,” Legislative Studies Quarterly 19 (1994), 33–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

15 Franks, The Parliament of Canada, 76.

16 Doreen Barrie and Roger Gibbons, “Parliamentary Careers in the Canadian Federal State,” this Journal 22 (1989), 137–45.

17 See, for example, Fleming, Robert, ed., Canadian Legislatures 1992 (Agincourt: Global Press, 1992).Google Scholar

18 Dunn, Christopher, “Executive Dominance in Provincial Legislatures,” Canadian Parliamentary Review 13 (1990), 11–19Google Scholar.

19 Moncrief, “Professionalization and Careerism in Canadian Provincial Assemlies.” See also Moncrief, Gary, “Professionalization and Careerism in North American Subnational Legislatures,” in Fleming, Robert J. and Glenn, J. E., eds., Fleming's Canadian Legislatures 1997 (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1997), 28–35Google Scholar.

20 Gary Moncrief, “Turnover Down Under: Electoral System Characteristics and Legislative Turnover in the Australian States,” paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, Washington, D.C., 1997.

21 As a matter of comparison, the Australian states have experienced a modest and steady increase in turnover through the 1980s and early 1990s, but nothing on the magnitude of what we find in Canada. In the US, the turnover in state legislatures dropped in the 1980s and increased a bit in the early 1990s. See ibid., Fig. 1.

22 For examples of research on the individual effects in Canadian politics, see William Irvine, “Does the Candidate Make a Difference? The Macro-Politics and Micro-Politics of Getting Elected,” this Journal 15 (1982), 755–85. Also see Michael Krashinsky and William Milne, “The Effect of Incumbency in the 1984 Federal and 1985 Ontario Elections,” this Journal 9 (1986), 337–43.

23 Elsewhere we have considered “legislative professionalization” as a systemic variable, and found that professionalization is not correlated to turnover in the same (inverse) manner in Canada as it is in the US. Because we have demonstrated the lack of such a relationship in the Canadian provinces, we exclude legislative professionalization as a relevant variable. See Moncrief, “Professionalization and Careerism in Canadian Provincial Assemblies”; and Moncrief, “Professionalization and Careerism in North American Subnational Legislatures.”

24 Atkinson and Docherty, “Moving Right Along,” 316.

25 US State legislators are almost three times as likely to retire than to lose an election, according to a study of turnover between 1978–1986. See Breaux, David and Jewell, Malcolm, “Winning Big: The Incumbency Advantage in State Legislative Races,” in Moncrief, Gary and Thompson, Joel A., eds., Changing Patterns in State Legislative Careers (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1992).Google Scholar